Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

Good advice, which is why I've been doing just that my entire adult life.

What do AGW 'scientists' do? They say, "The science is settled". That's pretty much the definition of being not willing to subject their theories to challenge.

Now, what was it you said? Oh yeah:


And you were right! 100% absolutely correct. Embrace it! Own it! Revel in it! After all, given your track record, it's not like it's gonna happen again anytime soon... ;)



I don't have a list, but apparently you do, and as usual you're projecting.

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

This proves it...We are NOT alone!!!!

https://www.foxnews.com/tech/ufo-videos-real-navy-acknowledges

straightUp Loc: California

1. That's just the BS you keep gorging yourself on. The IPCC actually attaches percentage estimates of how certain they are with their reports.
2. Saying the science is settled is NOT the same thing as refusing to accept new ideas. That's like saying the gas tank is empty so we will no longer buy gas. Yes, there have been times, like a little over a century ago where the science community thought everything was figured out, not because they didn't want to be challenged but because there WAS no challenge. Then quantum physics came along and guess what? Science accepted the challenge.


I didn't say YOU have a list... I said "daddy" does... And I'd love to see you try to find ANY list of acceptable theories that limits my own assessment. Go ahead... try it.

straightUp Loc: California

I don't see how that proves anything... There is ZERO mention of extraterrestrial sources or even the slightest suspicion of such in the article. The Navy is obviously going to be on the look out for any weapons being developed by potential enemies. Iran, Israel, Russia and China are capable of advanced weapons systems and tend not to share information with us.

A UFO simply means it flies and we don't know what it is.

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

UFO usually means that maybe it came from other distant planet...Maybe...

JohnCorrespondent

So now I have a reason to be a Republican.

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

Sure...We are very inclusive...

JohnCorrespondent

The automatic quote left out most of the post, and it's hard to reconstruct it. Rose42 was discussing God, religion, imagination, etc. with another poster.

In this post, I won't try to claim whether you know or don't know a thing. I just say: There are some things that _I_ don't know. One of them is what God is. Another is how the universe got started. I'm a good guesser though. Sometimes guessing feels about as good as knowing, if you do it right.

Science has models for reality. We (people) (including those who are scientists) don't understand _all_ about reality, but we can think up simple models that work pretty well to understand reality.

(The models are sometimes called "theories".)

The flat earth theory worked alright for a long time. Then the round earth theory worked even better. To clarify, I explain that in the round earth theory, the earth is so large that any small part of its surface works the same way as in the flat earth theory.

In another post, I've already put forth my guesses about how the universe got started. Now I want to also put forth my guesses about what God is.

In what I write, don't put too much meaning in whether I spell it as "God", or "god", or even "gods".

For me, there are at least two or three kinds of God:

There's the personal God. I'll probably never know how much of the personal God is just part of the human mind, and how much of the personal God exists independently of the human mind. I did have an experience, once, in which I felt the existence of God, and concluded that God does exist independently of the human mind. And I told myself to never forget it. I am unwilling to, and maybe incapable of, understanding more about that. Most of my ideas about God are just good guessing.

Someone, maybe you, said or indicated that humans are naturally bad. I disagree. And this is related to what sort of being we think God is.

One of the other kinds of God is the nature god. This (I say) is the god that would be involved, if a god created the universe. I don't believe "God created the universe" in the traditional sense. However, I do feel that "God and nature are the same thing" is a workable theory. For everything that happens, you can either say "God did it" or "nature did it" and it amounts to the same thing.

The other kind of god that occurs to me is the abstract god. This is a kind of supreme being, or supreme beingness. For example, wh**ever we imagine as the highest good, we believe that is a characteristic of the most supreme beingness, also called God.

It's possible to suppose that the personal God, the nature god, and the abstract god are all one and the same god. However, I don't think it's useful to think that way.

The personal God is a kind of friend. The nature god is a way of thinking about the universe (also called the natural world). The abstract god is a way of naming, or thinking about, what we feel is the highest good or the most important things.

straightUp Loc: California

Yes, for the general public that's what normally comes to mind.

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

Well, saying "The science is settled" definitely is BS, but it's what AGW alarmist 'scientists' do.


That would be the UN agency sponsoring a 16-yr-old autistic kid as the expert who should dictate worldwide energy policy for the next century, right?


Oh my word, how old are you? You still haven't realized that's a ploy to eliminate them ever having to admit they're wrong? You should try employing critical thinking sometime.


My bad...I didn't type the entire quote because everybody (except you, apparently) knows it. What I should have typed, because you're you, is the entire quote: "The science is settled, the debate is over."

That may not be the same as 'refusing to accept new ideas', meaning they'll still allow debate about whether AGW will be catastrophic or cataclysmic. But that's not what you originally stated. You said:


Them saying "The science is settled, the debate is over." is absolutely displaying their adamant unwillingness to subject their theories to challenge. Like you further stated, AGW has become a religion, in which the true believers believe not because of evidence, but despite it.


Huh? It's not 'like saying' anything.

It IS saying they refuse to debate their theories, instead they demand that everybody accept their BS as absolute proven fact. They are not willing to subject their theories to challenge. They have indeed crossed from science to religion.


That was about 50 years before the l*****ts began to take over the university systems. Thanks to those true scientists back then, quantum physics eventually led to the single most important invention of the 20th century...the t***sistor.


What you actually said was:


Sorry if I misunderstood, but I honestly have no idea who the "Daddy" you're referring to is, or what list(s) he has, or what's on it or them. Would you care to clarify?


No thanks, why would I want to do that? You're the one obsessed with lists, not me. So, given that you claim to not refer to any list, why would you accuse me of doing so? Especially some obscure list held by some 'daddy' or 'Daddy' that I've never heard of? Why would you even think that?

Voice of Reason Loc: Earth

Good post!

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

From something.

Premise 1 - everything that exists has a cause.
Premise 2 - the universe exists.
Conclusion - something caused the universe to exist.

IOW, that which exists cannot come from nothing.

Guess what that something is.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Yeah, we are alone.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Scientifically one would need to test said premises... But I concur...

straightUp Loc: California

I'm going to repeat the question because you apparently didn't understand it...

If everything didn't come from nothing where DID it everything come from?

Your answer is to say that everything came from something, but something is part of everything, so again... where did everything come from?


Uh, something that exists... and therefore has a cause. Isn't that your premise#1?

This is the flaw in creationism that NONE of you folks have EVER had an answer for. If God is something then what caused Him to exist. Go ahead give me your best answer.

One *could* say that God has always existed and was therefore never "caused". But you kind of screwed that up with your first premise.

BTW, I didn't say anything earlier because I didn't want to distract from the point I was making but big bang theory doesn't actually suggest the universe came from nothing. It suggests that the big bang is actually a very small and extremely dense bit of matter *that has always been there* exploding into an expanding universe. A complementary idea is that the universe will eventually start to contract and wind up imploding into that tiny bit of matter before exploding again. Leaving us with and endless series of expansions and contractions.

It's all theory but the point I want to make here is that the old fall back on the idea that God has always existed, so no further explanation is needed, can just as easily apply to big bang theory.

So from this perspective, neither of these theories are any more legitimate than the other. But it's the creationists, not the scientists that insist otherwise.